Dear all,
I would also be willing to be on such a task force. On the other
hand, I have serious doubts that it is a good idea to form a general
subgroup on fragments. In my view, fragments are an integral and
important part of the upcoming 1.1 spec. So if the WG decides to put
fragments on rec, it cannot just delegate the whole issue to a
subgroup.
On the other hand, the WG should maybe not be bothered with all the
gory details of every single fragment. It thus makes perfect sense to
install task forces for specific fragments. In particular, a task
force working on OWL Prime seems to be badly needed since many WG
members seem to only have a vague idea of what exactly OWL prime is
going to be. Similarly, DL Lite needs a task force to figure out which
version exactly we want to have, and even EL++ needs some final
polishing (but I am not sure that we really need a task force there).
I would like to reiterate my point that we should invest efforts
to properly understand each fragment that we make rec. This does not
mean carrying out difficult research within the WG or a task force,
but the least it means is to check all expressive means in OWL 1.1
as to whether or not they can *easily* be included in a fragment
without destroying its good behaviour. If there are no people willing
to do this for a particular fragment, I'd take that as an indication
that it does not have sufficient support to become rec.
greetings,
Carsten
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Jim Hendler wrote:
>
> Ahh, I thought you were asking for comments on the technical side of this,
> not about how to get the work done. I suggest we do it as a subgroup (task
> force) as we've done for the user-facing documents - I volunteer to be on
> such a task force and reiterate my offer, made since the beginning of the WG,
> to be one of the editors of the WG document(s) on this.
> -Jim H.
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>
>>
>> As promised in today's teleconf, here again is the email I sent last week
>> with a view to starting a discussion on how to move forward our work on
>> fragments.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> Resent-From: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>>> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
>>> Date: 22 February 2008 19:41:19 GMT
>>> To: Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Fragments
>>>
>>>
>>> I want to follow up on Wednesday's telecon discussion, and determine how
>>> best to operationalise our (very) provisional decisions on fragments.
>>>
>>> What I believe that we need is a new document that defines the (proposed)
>>> rec-track fragments. This document should define the syntax of the
>>> "scalable schema" (EL++ like) and "scalable data" (DL-Lite like)
>>> fragments, and the syntax and semantics of the "rules" fragment
>>> (DLP/OWL-Prime like). My understanding is that for the first two we only
>>> need syntax restrictions (the semantics are the same as for OWL 1.1 DL)
>>> and in the latter case we need syntax restrictions on the DL side (DLP)
>>> and a well defined semantics on the RDF side.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?." -
> Albert Einstein
>
> Prof James Hendler
> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
>
>
>
>
>
--
* Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden *
* Office phone:++49 351 46339171 mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de *